U.S. v. Morin

Decision Date08 November 1991
Docket NumberNo. 90-2277,90-2277
PartiesThe UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ronnie Eugene MORIN, Defendant-Appellant.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit

Presiliano Torrez (William L. Lutz, U.S. Atty., and Tara C. Neda, Asst. U.S. Atty., on the brief), Albuquerque, N.M., for plaintiff-appellee.

Penni Adrian, Albuquerque, N.M., for defendant-appellant.

Before BALDOCK, EBEL, and McWILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

McWILLIAMS, Circuit Judge.

Ronnie Eugene Morin was charged in a one-count indictment with unlawfully possessing less than fifty kilograms of marijuana, a Schedule I controlled substance, with an intent to distribute it, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(D). Prior to trial, Morin moved to suppress the use at trial of the marijuana taken from him and also moved to suppress the use at trial of any statements made by him to the arresting officers. After an evidentiary hearing, the district court denied that motion. Morin then entered a conditional plea of guilty, reserving his right to have appellate review of the district court's order denying his motion to suppress. Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(a)(2). Morin was thereafter sentenced to twenty-four months imprisonment to be followed by three years of supervised release. Morin appeals therefrom.

At the evidentiary hearing on Morin's motion to suppress, the government called one witness, James Richard Sheridan, Jr., an officer with the Albuquerque, New Mexico Police Department. Morin did not testify at the hearing, nor did he call any witness in his behalf.

Sheridan testified that he was a "narcotics detective" and that his current assignment was to "work public transportation," including "train terminals," looking for drug violations. He stated that a fellow police officer told him that he had received a tip from an anonymous informant that a person had boarded an Amtrak train in Flagstaff, Arizona, bound for Boston, Massachusetts, who "may be carrying narcotics."

More specifically, the informant told Sheridan's fellow officer that the individual in question was a 5'10"' white male, weighing around 200 pounds, that he was balding, and wearing a brownish-gray T-shirt with an "8th Street Tavern" logo on the back of the shirt. The informant further stated that this person had purchased a one-way ticket to Boston with cash, and that he personally carried onto the train three bags, "nylon-type soft side," one blue-green, one black and one burgundy color.

Sheridan testified that he and a different fellow officer "met" the Amtrak train when it came through Albuquerque en route to Boston, looking for a person who fit the description given by the informant. Sheridan stated that he and his fellow officer were on the train when they espied an individual standing on the station platform who fit the description, logo and all. The individual was looking at some jewelry, which was being sold on the platform by local vendors, and was also "scanning" the crowd. The individual thus observed boarded the train and proceeded towards a compartment on the lower level, which the officers thought to be "abnormal to most single travelers." 1 Based, then, on the fact that the individual fit the description given by the informant, plus the fact that the individual seemed to be "scanning" the crowd on the station platform, coupled with the additional fact that he was seated in an area on the train where single passengers generally would not be seated, Sheridan testified that he thought he had enough "probable cause" to at least ask the individual if he was carrying any narcotics.

The individual thus observed was Morin. As the train pulled out of the Albuquerque station, Officer Sheridan, in the vestibule area outside the lower compartment, engaged in conversation with Morin. First, Sheridan identified himself and showed Morin his badge and then asked if he could see Morin's ticket. Morin exhibited his ticket with his name on it. Sheridan then asked for some identification, and Morin produced a copy of his birth certificate. The information on Morin's certificate matched the information on his Amtrak ticket and both were returned to him.

Sheridan next informed Morin that he had received a tip that Morin might be carrying contraband. Morin showed Sheridan where he was seated, and Sheridan then asked if he was carrying any baggage. Morin pointed to a burgundy colored bag on an overhead rack above his seat. Sheridan asked Morin if he could search the bag, and, according to Sheridan, Morin consented. Sheridan's fellow officer entered the compartment occupied by Morin and retrieved the burgundy colored bag. He also informed Sheridan that he had detected an odor of marijuana emanating from somewhere near the doorway to the compartment.

A search of the burgundy colored bag revealed no contraband. Prompted by his fellow officers' report of the odor of marijuana near the doorway to the compartment, Sheridan entered the compartment, where, just inside, was a luggage rack on which were two soft-side nylon bags, one a blue-green color and the other black, and an army duffel bag, which bore an identification tag. There was no identification tag on either of the nylon bags. Sheridan stated that he, too, detected a strong odor of marijuana. He first picked up the duffel bag, and after squeezing and smelling it determined there was no marijuana in the bag. Officer Sheridan was informed that the duffel bag belonged to a passenger in the upper compartment. He then pulled the blue-green nylon bag towards him and "the Velcro fastener which covers the zipper ... pulled apart [and] out popped a greenish plastic bag with what appeared to me to be a marijuana stem sticking right through it." At this point Sheridan placed Morin under arrest and advised him of his Miranda rights. Sheridan at the same time took possession of the nylon bags, although neither was apparently opened at that particular moment. The only statement made by Morin at this point in time was that neither the blue-green nor the black nylon bag belonged to him.

The two officers and Morin left the train at Lamy, New Mexico, and were driven back to Albuquerque by the officer who had received the initial tip. During the course of the trip back to Albuquerque, Morin admitted that the marijuana in the blue-green bag was his. 2 The bags were later searched at police headquarters in Albuquerque, and 42 pounds of marijuana were seized.

In denying Morin's motion to suppress, the district court held that the initial encounter between the police officers and Morin in the vestibule of the train was consensual in nature, as was the search of the burgundy colored nylon bag which Morin had identified as his. As concerns the seizure of the blue-green and black nylon bags from the luggage rack in the compartment where Morin had his seat, the district court held that such was based on probable cause, consisting of, inter alia, the strong odor of marijuana in the vicinity of the two bags and Sheridan's visual observation of marijuana sticking out of the blue-green nylon bag.

The denial of a motion to suppress is reviewed by us under the clearly erroneous standard. United States v. Werking, 915 F.2d 1404, 1406 (10th Cir.1990) and United States v. Soto-Ornelas, 863 F.2d 1487, 1490 (10th Cir.1988). In our view, the district court's denial of Morin's motion to suppress is not clearly erroneous.

As indicated, the only evidentiary matter before the district court was Officer Sheridan's narration of events. Clearly his testimony shows that the initial questioning of Morin was with the latter's consent. Morin also consented to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
37 cases
  • US v. Leon-Chavez
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Utah
    • 31 Agosto 1992
    ...Cir.1989); United States v. Morales-Zamora, 914 F.2d 200, 205 (10th Cir.1990) (dog alert provides probable cause); United States v. Morin, 949 F.2d 297 (10th Cir.1991) (dog sniff provided probable cause); United States v. Stone, 866 F.2d 359, 364 (10th Cir.1989) (once the dog "keyed" the po......
  • State v. Sweedland
    • United States
    • South Dakota Supreme Court
    • 16 Agosto 2006
    ...and that the odor of marijuana alone can satisfy the probable cause requirement to search a vehicle or baggage." United States v. Morin, 949 F.2d 297, 300 (10th Cir.1991) (citing United States v. Merryman, 630 F.2d 780, 785 (10th Cir.1980); United States v. Sperow, 551 F.2d 808, 811 (10th C......
  • United States v. Harvey
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of West Virginia
    • 25 Octubre 2012
    ...stopped and the narcotics officers smelled marijuana, the narcotics officers properly conducted a search of the car. United States v. Morin, 949 F.2d 297 (10th Cir.1991) (holding that, because marijuana has a distinct smell, “the odor of marijuana alone can satisfy the probable cause requir......
  • People v. Taylor, Docket No. 103347
    • United States
    • Michigan Supreme Court
    • 17 Junio 1997
    ...See, e.g., United States v. Haley, 669 F.2d 201 (C.A.4, 1982); United States v. Miller, 812 F.2d 1206 (C.A.9, 1987); United States v. Morin, 949 F.2d 297 (C.A.10 1991). This Court has not expressly held that the sense of smell can support a finding of probable cause; however, we noted in Pe......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
4 books & journal articles
  • Using Legislative History as a Tool of Statutory Construction in Kansas
    • United States
    • Kansas Bar Association KBA Bar Journal No. 71-5, May 2002
    • Invalid date
    ...suspicion of illegal activity."). 46. See United States v. Sandoval, 29 F.3d 537, 540 (10th Cir. 1994). 47. United States v. Morin, 949 F.2d 297, 300 (10th Cir. 1991). 48. United States v. Anderson, 114 F.3d 1059, 1064 (10th Cir. 1997). 49. United States v. Zapata, 997 F.2d 751, 756 (10th C......
  • Survey of Washington Search and Seizure Law: 1998 Update
    • United States
    • Seattle University School of Law Seattle University Law Review No. 22-01, September 1998
    • Invalid date
    ...seizure of evidence so long as the officer was lawfully in the location where the odor was detected. See, e.g., United States v. Morin, 949 F.2d 297, 300 (10th Cir. 1991) (odor of marijuana can justify search of automobile or luggage); State v. Lueck, 678 F.2d 895, 903 (11th Cir. 1982) (con......
  • Survey of Washington Search and Seizure Law: 2005 Update
    • United States
    • Seattle University School of Law Seattle University Law Review No. 28-03, March 2005
    • Invalid date
    ...sniff of exterior of car detected drugs inside trunk and when police lawfully pulled car over for traffic stop); United States v. Morin, 949 F.2d 297, 300 (10th Cir. 1991) (odor of marijuana can justify a search of an automobile or luggage); United States v. Lueck, 678 F.2d 895, 903 (11th C......
  • Miles of Asphalt and the Evolving Rule of Law: Are We There Yet?
    • United States
    • Kansas Bar Association KBA Bar Journal No. 71-5, May 2002
    • Invalid date
    ...suspicion of illegal activity."). 46. See United States v. Sandoval, 29 F.3d 537, 540 (10th Cir. 1994). 47. United States v. Morin, 949 F.2d 297, 300 (10th Cir. 1991). 48. United States v. Anderson, 114 F.3d 1059, 1064 (10th Cir. 1997). 49. United States v. Zapata, 997 F.2d 751, 756 (10th C......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT